JN THEORY, the British Conservative Party opposes nationalization as a principle, as a philosophy, as a policy and as a program, Conversely, the British Labour Party has consistently supported nationalization in all four contexts, although the zeal of some of its members has dimmed in recent months. It was the nationalization party throughout its long periods in opposition, notably, and with increasing force, between 1931 and 1939, and more recently, during its six-and-a-half years in power. Nationalization in one form or another is the essential ingredient, the fundamental technique, in the establishment of state ownership and in the fulfillment of the hallowed Socialist aspiration public control of the means of production, distribution and exchange. However, many of the devices and precedents for Socialist action in Great Britain in 1945-51 were created by the Conservative and Conservative-dominated governments of the inter-war years, more particularly after the reversion to protection through the Import Duties Act of February, 1932 and the Ottawa Agreements Act of November, 1932. The restraints and restrictions of a new mercantilism were no small help to the collectivist propaganda of the inter-war period the era of the retreat from liberty. A representative example of such thinking was Mr. Harold Macmillan, now Prime Minister, a man of integrity and high intellectual caliber, who wrote in his book, Tke Middle Way, published in 1938, "The Socialist remedy should .. . be accepted . . . where it is obvious that its social usefulness or where the general welfare of the economy requires that certain basic industries need now to be conducted in the light of broader social considerations than the profit motive provides." Eleven years later, at Gainsborough, on June 18, 1949, Mr. Macmillan opined, "Socialist enterprises nationalised industries and utilities -lose money. Profits turn into losses. Outputs fall. Costs increase." And in 1933, Professor Harold Laski, a future Chairman of the Labour Party National